DOCSLIB.ORG

Proof Rules for the Dialogical Logic N∗

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Proof Rules for the Dialogical Logic N∗ Proof rules for the dialogical logic N∗ Jesse Alama1 and Sara L. Uckelman2 1 Center for Artificial Intelligence New University of Lisbon [email protected] 2 Institute for Logic, Language, and Computation Universiteit van Amsterdam [email protected] Abstract We outline the beginnings of a proof-theory for the dialogical logic N introduced in [1]. 1 Introduction Dialogical logic was introduced by Lorenzen in the 1950s and 1960s as an alternative semantics for intuitionistic logic [5, 6] based on the existence of winning strategies for certain two-person games. The dialogical approach has been extended beyond intuitionistic logic to give new semantics for classical logic, modal logic, free logic, connexive logic, relevance logic, and oth- ers [3, 7]. However, with one exception, all work on dialogical logic to date has been done with respect to logics which are independently defined, that is, where a semantics or proof theory for the logic is already known. The exception [1] uses dialogues not to provide semantics for a known logic but to generate a wholly new sub-classical logic, N. Because the only known seman- tics for N are dialogical, a number of interesting open problems arise for it, such as whether an axiomatization or proof theory can be given for it, and whether a more standard, non-dialogical semantics can be given. Our focus in this note is the former question; we make preliminary investigations into the proof theory for N. 2 Dialogical logic The basis of the dialogical approach to logic is finitary open two-person zero-sum games between the players Proponent P and Opponent O [4]. A formula ' is S-valid iff Proponent has a winning strategy for ', according to some designated set S of rules governing allowed dialogues. The dialogical rules are divided into two types, structural and particle. The particle rules relate solely to the logical connectives; they explain how formulas can be attacked and defended by the two players based on the structure of the formulas. Structural rules restrict the possible moves of the players at any given round of the dialogue [2]. In addition to propositional formulas, there are the three so-called symbolic attack expressions, ?, ^L, and ^R. The standard particle rules for a basic propositional language are given in Table 1; they specify which attacks and defenses can be used against formulas of various types. Note that there is no way to defend against an attack against a negation; the only appropriate \defense" against an attack on a negation :' is to continue the game with the new information '. We introduce the structural rules under investigation in the next section; first we continue with some general definitions about dialogues. ∗Both authors were funded by the FCT/NWO/DFG project \Dialogical Foundations of Semantics" (DiFoS) in the ESF EuroCoRes programme LogICCC (FCT LogICCC/0001/2007; LogICCC-FP004; DN 231-80-002; CN 2008/08314/GW). A. Voronkov, G. Sutcliffe, M. Baaz, C. Ferm¨uller(eds.), LPAR-17-short (EPiC Series, vol. 13), pp. 1{6 1 Proof rules for N Alama and Uckelman Assertion Attack Response ' ^ ^L ' ^R ' _ ? ' or ' ! ' :' ' | Table 1: Particle rules for dialogue games Definition 2.1. Given a set S of structural rules, an S-dialogue for a formula ' is a dialogue commencing with ' that adheres to the rules of S. P wins an S-dialogue if there is a round where P has moved and there is no move that O an legally make. We can represent the development of dialogues as trees. The S-dialogue tree TS;' for a formula ' is a rooted tree such that every branch of TS;' is an S-dialogue for ', and every S-dialogue for ' occurs as a branch in TS;'. We then identify a subset of branches of TS;' which we designate as winning. Definition 2.2. An S-winning strategy s for P for ' is a rooted subtree of TS;' satisfying: 1. The root of s is the root of TS;'; 2. Every branch of s is an S-dialogue won by P ; 3. If k is odd and a is a depth-k node of s, then a has exactly one child; 4. If k is even and a is a depth-k node of s, then all of a's children in TS;' are present. That is, a winning strategy for P is a kind of function saying how P can win given any move by O. 3 The logic N The logic N is the set of formulas for which P has a winning strategy using the particle rules specified previously and the following structural rules (following Felscher [2]): (D10) P may assert an atomic formula only after it has been asserted by O before. (D13)A P -assertion may be attacked at most once. That this set of formulas is closed under modus ponens, that is, that it is a logic, is Theorem 5 of [1]. N is a sub-classical logic; it does not, for example, validate Peirce's law (((p ! q) ! p) ! p). In fact, the following characterization of valid implications in N can be given: Theorem 3.1 ([1], Thm. 3). Every N-valid implication ' ! satisfies one of the following conditions: (1) ' is atomic; (2) ' is negated; or (3) is N-valid. N is neither sub- nor super-intuitionistic: It validates the Law of Excluded Middle, so it is not subintuitionistic; and it does not validate one of the intuitionistically valid forms of De Morgan's Laws ((:p _:q) !:(p ^ q)), so it is not superintuitionistic. Further properties of N include: 2 Proof rules for N Alama and Uckelman `N ' ! `N ' `N ' ! `N `N : !:' `N `N ' ! Contraposition Modus ponens Weakening `N ' `N ::' `N ' ! ( ! θ) `N ::' `N ' `N ! (' ! θ) DNI DNE Exchange Figure 1: Sound proof rules of N Lemma 3.2 ([1], Lem. 1). If N , then N ' ! , for all formulas '. Lemma 3.3. N ' iff N ::'. Proof. (() This follows from the proof of [1, Thm. 5]. ()) This is an immediate corollary of [1, Thm. 4], since N ' ! ::'. Unlike other dialogical logics which already have independent semantic and proof-theoretic justifications, N is currently characterizable only by dialogical means. In the next section we sketch the beginnings of an axiomatization and proof-theory for N. 4 Proof rules and axioms for N 4.1 Axioms A list of some N-valid formulas is given in [1, Table 3]; this list includes the Law of Ex- cluded Middle, Weak Excluded Middle, Dummett's formula, double negation introduction and elimination, the K formula, Conditional Excluded Middle, and two of the four implications of DeMorgan's laws. Because none of them contain as subformulas any N validity (and hence cannot be reduced to other valid formulas), all of these are to be considered candidates for axioms of N. 4.2 Proof rules Figure 1 lists some rules of inference that are known to be sound for N. The soundness of modus ponens follows from the positive solution to the composition problem for N [1, x4]. Lemmas 3.2 and 3.3 express the soundness of weakening and double negation introduction and elimination. To show that contraposition is sound, consider the partial dialogue trees given in Tables 2 and 3; the first is the beginning of the dialogue tree TN;'! and the second is one branch of the dialogue tree for : !:'. Note that the initial branch of the N-dialogue tree for : !:' already excludes a possibility: At step 2, P could have attacked O's assertion of : , rather than defending. O's moves, however, are forced. Nevertheless, this branch can be extended to a winning strategy by taking the winning strategy for ' ! , minus the first two steps displayed in Table 2, and increasing the move labels by 4. Such a grafting does not fail to account for possible moves of O beyond step 5 because O cannot attack or defend any moves in the initial 4-step sequence of Table 3 . 3 Proof rules for N Alama and Uckelman 0 P' ! (initial move) 1 O' [A,0] Table 2: Initial segment of a winning strategy for ' ! To prove the soundness of the exchange rule, note that the characterization theorem for N-valid implications allows us to dispense with one possibility immediately: If θ alone is N- valid, then desired conclusion follows by two applications of weakening. If θ alone is not N-valid but ! θ is, then after the first four moves of the dialogue tree for ! (' ! θ) (given in Table 41), P can ignore the information ' of move 3 and use the winning strategy for ! θ. The most interesting case is when neither θ nor ! θ are N-valid. We can recover a winning strategy for ! (' ! θ) by comparing Table 4 with the information we have thanks to the assumption that N ' ! ( ! θ). The opening of the N-dialogue game for this formula is given in Table 5. Note that in Table 4, the formulas ' and have both been asserted by O, but the order of their assertion is exchanged compared to Table 5. It is clear that P has a winning strategy for ! (' ! θ) for which the first four moves of Table 4 constitute an initial segment; simply permuting the use of the information ' and in the winning strategy for ' ! ( ! θ). Curiously, the following proof rule is not sound: ` ' ! ` (γ ! ') ! (γ ! ) As a counterexample, take the N axiom ::p ! p. Let γ := q. The formula (q ! ::p) ! (q ! p) is not N valid because the antecedent is neither atomic nor negated, and the consequent is not itself an N validity, and hence the implication fails to satisfy the characterization theorem.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Contextual Epistemic Logic Manuel Rebuschi, Franck Lihoreau
    Contextual Epistemic Logic Manuel Rebuschi, Franck Lihoreau To cite this version: Manuel Rebuschi, Franck Lihoreau. Contextual Epistemic Logic. C. Degrémont, L. Keiff & H. Rückert. Dialogues, Logics and Other Strange Things. Essays in Honour of Shahid Rahman, King’s College Publication, pp.305-335, 2008, Tributes. hal-00133359 HAL Id: hal-00133359 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00133359 Submitted on 11 Jan 2009 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Contextual Epistemic Logic Manuel Rebuschi Franck Lihoreau L.H.S.P. – Archives H. Poincar´e Instituto de Filosofia da Linguagem Universit´eNancy 2 Universidade Nova de Lisboa [email protected] [email protected] Abstract One of the highlights of recent informal epistemology is its growing theoretical emphasis upon various notions of context. The present paper addresses the connections between knowledge and context within a formal approach. To this end, a “contextual epistemic logic”, CEL, is proposed, which consists of an extension of standard S5 epistemic modal logic with appropriate reduction axioms to deal with an extra contextual operator. We describe the axiomatics and supply both a Kripkean and a dialogical semantics for CEL.
    [Show full text]
  • Implicit Versus Explicit Knowledge in Dialogical Logic Manuel Rebuschi
    Implicit versus Explicit Knowledge in Dialogical Logic Manuel Rebuschi To cite this version: Manuel Rebuschi. Implicit versus Explicit Knowledge in Dialogical Logic. Ondrej Majer, Ahti-Veikko Pietarinen and Tero Tulenheimo. Games: Unifying Logic, Language, and Philosophy, Springer, pp.229-246, 2009, 10.1007/978-1-4020-9374-6_10. halshs-00556250 HAL Id: halshs-00556250 https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00556250 Submitted on 16 Jan 2011 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Implicit versus Explicit Knowledge in Dialogical Logic Manuel Rebuschi L.P.H.S. – Archives H. Poincar´e Universit´ede Nancy 2 [email protected] [The final version of this paper is published in: O. Majer et al. (eds.), Games: Unifying Logic, Language, and Philosophy, Dordrecht, Springer, 2009, 229-246.] Abstract A dialogical version of (modal) epistemic logic is outlined, with an intuitionistic variant. Another version of dialogical epistemic logic is then provided by means of the S4 mapping of intuitionistic logic. Both systems cast new light on the relationship between intuitionism, modal logic and dialogical games. Introduction Two main approaches to knowledge in logic can be distinguished [1]. The first one is an implicit way of encoding knowledge and consists in an epistemic interpretation of usual logic.
    [Show full text]
  • Inferential Semantics As Argumentative Dialogues Davide Catta, Luc Pellissier, Christian Retoré
    Inferential Semantics as Argumentative Dialogues Davide Catta, Luc Pellissier, Christian Retoré To cite this version: Davide Catta, Luc Pellissier, Christian Retoré. Inferential Semantics as Argumentative Dialogues. DCAI 2020 - 17th International Conference on Distributed Computing and Artificial Intelligence, Jun 2020, L´Aquila, Italy. pp.72-81, 10.1007/978-3-030-53829-3_7. hal-02922646 HAL Id: hal-02922646 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02922646 Submitted on 26 Aug 2020 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Inferential Semantics as Argumentative Dialogues Davide Catta1, Luc Pellissier2, and Christian Retor´e1 1 LIRMM, Univ Montpellier, CNRS, Montpellier [email protected], [email protected] 2 Partout, INRIA Saclay ^Ile de France [email protected] Abstract. This paper is at the same time a first step towards an \im- plementation" of the inferentialist view of meaning and a first proposal for a logical structure which describes an argumentation. According to inferentialism the meaning of a statement lies in its argumentative use, its justifications, its refutations and more generally its deductive rela- tion to other statements. In this first step we design a simple notion of argumentative dialogue.
    [Show full text]
  • Arguing Ecosystem Values with Paraconsistent Logics
    Arguing Ecosystem Values with Paraconsistent Logics Juan Afanador University of Edinburgh November 18, 2019 Abstract The valuation of ecosystem services prompts dialogical settings where non-trivially incon- sistent arguments are often invoked. Here, I propose an approach to the valuation of ecosystem services circumscribed to a logic-based argumentation framework that caters for valid inconsis- tencies. This framework accounts for preference formation processes underpinned by a paracon- sistent model of logical entailment. The value of an ecosystem service is produced in the form of an ordering over competing land-use practices, as per the arguments surviving semantical probing. Keywords: valuation of ecosystem services, abstract argumentation, paraconsistent logics, Dialetheism. 1 Introduction The valuation of ecosystem services deals with distinct and contradictory views on value, a mul- tiplicity that typically reflects opposing or conflicting land-use practices. At times, it is the case that the same people who acknowledge the importance of the benefits derived from a particular ecosystem function, and who are also aware of the connection between the two, undertake actions that contravene the precedence of such knowledge. Furthermore, these decisions are not made in the abstract, but mediated by various forms of sociality involving dialogue —even if only implicitly. This document presents an approach to the valuation of ecosystem services that incorporates the contradictions and inconsistencies inherent in valuation —an approach I term Argumentative arXiv:1911.06367v1 [cs.LO] 14 Nov 2019 Valuation (AV). AV relies on an argumentation framework structured around Dialetheism. AV’s argumentation framework enables the dialogical settings where values substantiate, while its di- aletheic substrate allows for true (truthful) inconsistencies in the values’ antecedents.
    [Show full text]
  • Chu's Construction
    Chu's construction: A proof-theoretic approach revisited G. Bellin October 1, 2015 Abstract The paper Chu's construction: A proof-theoretic approach (Bellin 2003) relates the proof-theoretic question about the meaning of Girard's long trips condition for proof nets to research (Hyland and Schalk 2003) on abstract structures with self-duality related to game-semantics, namely, dialectica categories (De Paiva 1991) and Chu's construction (Barr 1979). We consider an informal interpretation inspired by htis result, assuming that the role of player and opponent in a dialogue may involve different illocutionary forces (question / answer, assertion/ doubt). We ask how this relates to other game theoretic or dialogical interpretations. Simple self-duality and the long trip condition. The abstract of (Bellin 2003) says: "The essential interaction between classical and intuitionistic features in the system of linear logic is best described in the language of category theory. Given a symmetric monoidal closed category C with finite products, the category C × Cop can be given the structure of a ∗-autonomous category by a special case of the Chu construction. Girard's trips induce translations of classical MLL− proof net into intuitionistic proof in IMLL− and these translations determine the functor from the free ∗-autonomous op category A on a set of atoms fP1; P2;:::g to C × C , where C is the free monoidal closed category with products and coproducts on 0 0 0 the set of atoms fP1; P1; P2; P2;:::g (a pair P, P in C for each atom P of A)." 1. CMLL: Classical Multiplicative Linear Logic Language of CMLL: A; B := P j P? j 1 j ? j A ⊗ B j A}B in negation normal form: 1? = ?; (A ⊗ B)? = (A?}B?), etc.
    [Show full text]
  • Argumentation Theory Vs Formal Logic: the Case of Scientific Argumentation and the 'Logic' of Controversies
    INTERNATIONAL COLLOQUIUM INSIDE ARGUMENTS LOGIC vs ARGUMENTATION THEORY Faculty of Letters of the University of Coimbra (Portugal) March 24-26, 2011 __________________________ ABSTRACTS (alphabetical order) _________________ 1 A Little Light Logic Alec Fisher University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK As a student, in the 1960s, I trained as a philosopher and mathematical logician. When I began teaching philosophy and logic I had a shock―which was that teaching logic didn‟t help my students to be more logical (teaching philosophy didn‟t seem to help either). So I began to work on ways of helping students become more logical and reasonable. This was a relatively novel idea in the 1970s and it lead first to the publication of The Logic of Real Arguments and later to Critical Thinking: An Introduction―with various diversions into assessment issues on the way. In this, my last conference talk (!), I shall reflect on the roles of formal logic, informal logic and critical thinking in education – and on some of the mistakes I have made! Some Thoughts about Logical Form and Argument Analysis Andrei Moldovan University of Salamanca, Spain The purpose of this paper is twofold. On the one hand, it is a rejection of some arguments present in the literature against the relevance of formal logic to argument analysis and evaluation. On the other hand, it is an assessment, from the perspective of philosophy of language, of formal analysis of arguments. I claim that without having a good understanding of some fundamental concepts in philosophical semantics and pragmatics, such as logical form, implicature and presupposition, formal analyses of arguments are prone to error.
    [Show full text]
  • CONSTRUCTIVE TYPE THEORY and the DIALOGICAL Rules for Dialectical Games Presented in the Topics (Θ, 2, 157A 34 and 3 APPROACH to MEANING 8,160B)
    Constructive Type Theory 2 The Baltic International Yearbook of 1. INTRODUCTION: KUNO LORENZ AND THE DIALOGICAL TURN Cognition, Logic and Communication Since the time of ancient Greece—where the agora emerged as the first November 2013 Volume 8: Games, Game Theory public space for discussion and decision-making on diverse and serious and Game Semantics matters—and after the crucial influence of the Sophists, of Plato and pages 1-72 DOI: 10.4148/1944-3676.1077 of Aristotle, dialectical reasoning won a place in our understanding of science and the constitution of society that it has kept ever since. SHAHID RAHMAN In a recent paper M. Marion and H. Rückert (forth)—who for Université de Lille, UMR 8163: STL the first time since the early papers by Kuno Lorenz and Jürgen Mit- 2 NICOLAS CLERBOUT tlestrass (1966; 1967) take up the historic roots of the theory of Université de Lille, UMR 8163: STL meaning underlying dialogical logic—show how the notion of quan- tified expressions in Aristotle’s syllogistic was based on some specific CONSTRUCTIVE TYPE THEORY AND THE DIALOGICAL rules for dialectical games presented in the Topics (Θ, 2, 157a 34 and 3 APPROACH TO MEANING 8,160b). However, after Aristotle, the theories of inference and of dialectical reasoning followed different paths and thus the dynamic as- pects of logic were lost. Furthermore, during the years immediately following the failure of the project of logical positivism, the links be- ABSTRACT: In its origins Dialogical logic constituted one part tween science as a body of knowledge and science as a process by of a new movement called the Erlangen School or Erlangen Con- which knowledge is achieved were cut off.
    [Show full text]
  • Functorial Vector Space Semantics and String Diagrams for Lambek Calculus
    Lambek vs. Lambek: Functorial Vector Space Semantics and String Diagrams for Lambek Calculus Authors: Bob Coecke, Edward Grefenstette, Mehrnoosh Sadrzadeh Affiliation: Department of Computer Science, University of Oxford Address: Wolfson Building, Parks Road, Oxford, OX1 3QD Emails: [email protected] Abstract The Distributional Compositional Categorical (DisCoCat) model is a mathematical framework that provides compositional semantics for meanings of natural language sentences. It consists of a computational procedure for constructing meanings of sentences, given their grammatical structure in terms of compositional type-logic, and given the empirically derived meanings of their words. For the particular case that the meaning of words is modelled within a distributional vector space model, its experimental predictions, derived from real large scale data, have outperformed other em- pirically validated methods that could build vectors for a full sentence. This success can be attributed to a conceptually motivated mathematical underpinning, something which the other methods lack, by integrating qualitative compositional type-logic and quantitative modelling of meaning within a category-theoretic mathematical framework. The type-logic used in the DisCoCat model is Lambek’s pregroup grammar. Pregroup types form a posetal compact closed category, which can be passed, in a functorial manner, on to the compact closed structure of vector spaces, linear maps and tensor product. The diagrammatic versions of the equational reasoning in compact closed categories can be interpreted as the flow of word meanings within sentences. Pregroups simplify Lambek’s previous type-logic, the Lambek calculus. The latter and its extensions have been extensively used to formalise and reason about various linguistic phe- nomena.
    [Show full text]
  • On W H Y Non Normal M O D a L I T I E S . Pluralism for A
    ON WH Y NON NORMAL MO D A L I T I E S . PLURALISM FOR A MONIST AND THE CASE OF THE COUNTERLOGICAL Shahid Rahman Université Lille 3 Abstract The aim of the paper is to offer a dialogical interpretation of non-normal modal logic which will suggest some explorations beyond the concept of non-normality. This interpretation will be connected to the dis- cussion of a minimalist defence of logical pluralism. Keywords: non-normal modal logics; dialogical logic; logical pluralism. Convincitur ergo etiam insipiens esse vel in intellectu … Anselm of Canterbury, Proslogion, capitulum II, Ps 13, 1, 52, 1 (Thus, even he who knows no better will be convinced that at least it is in the intellect…) At the end of the 19th century Hugh MacColl (1837-1909), the father of pluralism in formal logic, attempted in the north of France (Boulogne sur mer) to formulate a modal logic which would challenge the semantics of material implication of the post-Boolean wave. It seems that in some of his various attempts MacColl sugges- ted some systems where the rule of necessitation fails.i Moreover, the idea that no logical necessity has universal scope - or that no logic could be applied to any ar- gumentative context - seems to be akin and perhaps even central to his pluralistic philosophy of logic.ii Some years later Clarence Irwin Lewis furnished the axioma- tics for several of these logics and since then the critics on the material implication have shown an increasing interest in these modal logics called “non-normal”. When Saul Kripke studied their semantics of
    [Show full text]
  • A Very Brief Introduction to Standard Classical and Intuitionistic Dialogical Logic Shahid Rahman
    A Very Brief Introduction to Standard Classical and Intuitionistic Dialogical Logic Shahid Rahman To cite this version: Shahid Rahman. A Very Brief Introduction to Standard Classical and Intuitionistic Dialogical Logic. 2015. halshs-01226098 HAL Id: halshs-01226098 https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-01226098 Preprint submitted on 8 Nov 2015 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution| 4.0 International License A Very Brief Introduction to Standard Classical and Intuitionistic Dialogical Logic Shahid Rahman Université de Lille, UMR 8163: STL, ADA(MESHS-nord-Pas-de Calais) (Draft 10 Oct 2014) The present paper, that provides an introduction to standard dialogical logic, has mainly didactic purposes. Thus, the study of the metalogical properties has been left totally by side. However, two sections have been added for those readers willing to go through a technically more demanding material. The first one contains a technically rigorous presentation of standard dialogical logic the second one presents, some very recent work towards a logic with content, applied to modal logic, where modal logic is developed in a purely dialogical way: instead of worlds, we have contexts, constituted by hypothetical assertions and where transitions between worlds are understood as extending contexts by the means of questions.
    [Show full text]
  • A Curious Dialogical Logic and Its Composition Problem
    A curious dialogical logic and its composition problem Sara L. Uckelman ([email protected]) ∗ Exzellenzcluster \Asia and Europe", Karl Jaspers Centre for Advanced Transcultural Studies, Ruprecht-Karls Universit¨atHeidelberg Jesse Alama ([email protected]) Center for Artificial Intelligence, New University of Lisbon Aleks Knoks ([email protected]) Department of Philosophy, University of Maryland Abstract. Dialogue semantics for logic are two-player logic games between a Pro- ponent who puts forward a logical formula ' as valid or true and an Opponent who disputes this. An advantage of the dialogical approach is that it is a uniform framework from which different logics can be obtained through only small variations of the basic rules. We introduce the composition problem for dialogue games as the problem of resolving, for a set S of rules for dialogue games, whether the set of S-dialogically valid formulas is closed under modus ponens. Solving the composition problem is fundamental for the dialogical approach to logic; despite its simplicity, it often requires an indirect solution with the help of significant logical machinery such as cut-elimination. Direct solutions to the composition problem can, however, some- times be had. As an example, we give a set N of dialogue rules which is well-justified from the dialogical point of view, but whose set N of dialogically valid formulas is both non-trivial and non-standard. We prove that the composition problem for N can be solved directly, and introduce a tableaux system for N. Keywords: composition problem, dialogical logic, tableaux ∗ The first two authors were partially funded by the FCT/NWO/DFG project \Dialogical Foundations of Semantics" (DiFoS) in the ESF EuroCoRes pro- gramme LogICCC (FCT LogICCC/0001/2007; LogICCC-FP004; DN 231-80-002; CN 2008/08314/GW).
    [Show full text]
  • Games: Unifying Logic, Language, and Philosophy Logic, Epistemology, and the Unity of Science Volume 15
    GAMES: UNIFYING LOGIC, LANGUAGE, AND PHILOSOPHY LOGIC, EPISTEMOLOGY, AND THE UNITY OF SCIENCE VOLUME 15 Editors Shahid Rahman, University of Lille III, France John Symons, University of Texas at El Paso, U.S.A. Editorial Board Jean Paul van Bendegem, Free University of Brussels, Belgium Johan van Benthem, University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands Jacques Dubucs, University of Paris I-Sorbonne, France Anne Fagot-Largeault Collège de France, France Bas van Fraassen, Princeton University, U.S.A. Dov Gabbay, King’s College London, U.K. Jaakko Hintikka, Boston University, U.S.A. Karel Lambert, University of California, Irvine, U.S.A. Graham Priest, University of Melbourne, Australia Gabriel Sandu, University of Helsinki, Finland Heinrich Wansing, Technical University Dresden, Germany Timothy Williamson, Oxford University, U.K. Logic, Epistemology, and the Unity of Science aims to reconsider the question of the unity of science in light of recent developments in logic. At present, no single logical, semantical or methodological framework dominates the philosophy of science. However, the editors of this series believe that formal techniques like, for example, independence friendly logic, dialogical logics, multimodal logics, game theoretic semantics and linear logics, have the potential to cast new light no basic issues in the discussion of the unity of science. This series provides a venue where philosophers and logicians can apply specific technical insights to fundamental philosophical problems. While the series is open to a wide variety of perspectives, including the study and analysis of argumentation and the critical discussion of the relationship between logic and the philosophy of science, the aim is to provide an integrated picture of the scientific enterprise in all its diversity.
    [Show full text]